Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Mark's avatar
  2. David Wallace's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. UK academic's avatar
  5. J. McKenzie Alexander's avatar
  6. David Wallace's avatar
  7. Mark Taylor's avatar

Is attrition from a graduate program necessarily a bad thing?

Brian Leiter

A senior philosopher at another top program (not Michigan) e-mailed an interesting question about attrition; she writes:

[Y]our most recent post raises a question that might be worth discussing, namely whether all grad school attrition is a bad thing, and how to tell good from bad if not. I think US News etc. have done a huge disservice to academe by suggesting that the higher the completion rate the better at the undergrad level, and I wouldn't like to see the same assumption become unquestioned at the graduate level. Some people are better off doing something else, especially when there are not going to be enough jobs for all qualified candidates, and it's often in everyone's interest for them to find that out before completion — though the how and when is always tricky, and most departments don't handle it well. And of course from an applicant's point of view a high attrition rate is always reasonably taken as a bad sign.

I am inclined to agree with my correspondent.  Readers?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

19 responses to “Is attrition from a graduate program necessarily a bad thing?”

  1. Professor

    I strongly agree.

    It seems to me that the obvious answer is to make the required coursework, which typically brings a Master's anyway, into a proper program with a fixed schedule, serious evaluation and a decision point at the end.

    From what I've seen, few programs treat the first two years as a serious hurdle. They let students leave coursework incomplete and postpone deadlines, a policy of indulgence that isn't, in the end, in the best interests of those who are struggling. Something like the Oxford B.Phil. degree, on the other hand, is a real achievement that stands hugely to the credit of someone who then goes off to do other things.

    Reply
  2. Alex

    As an undergrad student with hopes of being accepted with funding to a top graduate program, the fact that a school has a high attrition rate is not disheartening. In fact, I happen to think it is a good thing and almost functions as a sort of "natural selection." Graduate school should, in my opinion, be rigorous enough to make students consider whether or not this is the right area of professionalization for them. A school with very low attrition rates for me seems like they might be easier to "handle," for lack of a better word, and that doesn't strike me as something good for students.

    Reply
  3. anonymous grad student

    This seems right to me. I would also add that I think numbers are too small at most (all?) philosophy grad programs for us even to be able to read into attrition rates anything about whether people are even leaving for these (or any other) reasons. So it seems especially bad to read much into attrition rates at grad programs (in my program, for example, of the two people I can think of who have left the program since I entered, one left for serious personal health reasons and the other to deal with a serious family responsibility). (There may be other people who were in "not finished but not around" limbo land.) We should keep in mind that lots of people leave for reasons other than that they are "better off doing something else"–e.g. that they are essentially forced to do something else.

    I would also add that it would be very good for programs to take more of an active role in helping students realize that they are better off doing something else early on, i.e. long before they are floundering in writing their dissertations…

    Reply
  4. Elizabeth

    There's a difference between early and late attrition. Early attrition can signal a healthy process of students who realize that grad school is a poor fit getting out before they have lost much, perhaps with a Master's degree.

    But when lots of people are lingering at the ABD stage for years and years without ever getting a degree, I think that is a sign of a program falling down on the job.

    Reply
  5. Eddy Nahmias

    Keep in mind that one explanation for lower attrition rates now than decades ago is that the competition to get into PhD programs is likely (much?) higher now, in which case one would expect more selection on the front end than during the course of getting the PhD.

    Having said that, I strongly agree that it does no one any good to linger in a PhD program as an ABD unlikely to finish (much less get a position) and likely unhappy. The best way to prevent that is to have real assessments of the likelihood of finishing successfully, including coursework, exams, and diss proposal (with the MA option as a way out).

    Having taught at a terminal MA program for a decade now, I can also say that such programs are also a reliable way to let students discover whether they want to spend 5+ more years doing philosophy and for faculty to let PhD programs know whether the students are likely to succeed.

    Finally, from the armchair, I'd guess that people who take off a couple years and work in the "real world" are less likely to decide to get PhD unless they really want it and more likely to finish it if they start (especially if they had a crappy job before).

    Reply
  6. Marcus Arvan

    Several of the comments here suggest that it might be good for programs to help students figure out early on whether they might be better off doing something else. I agree. Early attrition is far better for everyone–for students and programs– than late attrition.

    Still, I think we should approach this with caution. In particular, I do not think programs should force or even coax out students who are merely "struggling" in the opinion of their faculty. Students who *clearly* cannot out their coursework or comp exams are one thing. But, for all that, I have known more than a few PhD students who struggled significantly their first couple of years–and then again at the dissertation stage–before really hitting their stride and surprising a lot of people later on. There were a number of these cases in my program, and it would have been unfortunate indeed for our program, and those individuals, to have been pushed out.

    Reply
  7. another anonymous grad student

    There seems to be a strange assumption in this thread, that the only or best explanation for high attrition rates is that the programs in question are correctly separating the wheat from the chaff. But, in my (admittedly anecdotal experience) high attrition rates often signal not the program's proper recognition of the inability of some of its students to become good philosophers, but the failure of program in question to create an atmosphere in which good philosophers can develop and thrive; not everyone who has the makings of a good philosopher can develop without institutional help. It would be curious, in this regard, to correlate placement with attrition rate. I suspect we'd see low attrition coupled with high placement, which would scotch the going hypothesis here. (MIT is, I think, a good example, although this is just anecdotal– I'm seriously curious to see what the results of this would be.)Of course, one might still think that it would be good if we could push some people out early on–i.e. were this to be the explanation for high attrition rates, it would not be a bad thing. (I take it that this is what the original poster means by "necessarily.") But I have thoughts similar to Marcus Arvan on this score; the costs of doing so might be very high, given that perfectly capable people sometimes struggle at the beginning. It might also contribute to an unfriendly atmosphere in the department that takes a heavy emotional toll on otherwise perfectly capable students.

    Reply
  8. Peter Alward

    In addition to generally agreeing with comment #7 (another anonymous grad student) i have two other comments:

    1. among other things, a high attrition rate may reflect poor decisions by the graduate admission committee rather than anything more admirable about a program.

    2. the whole discussion seems to presuppose that a PhD in philosophy is mainly of instrumental value, as a means of improving one's career prospects. My own view — and this was my attitude going into my own PhD program — is that it is fundamentally valuable as a life accomplishment rather than as a means of employment. A bourgeois attitude? maybe. But I nevertheless still think my life would have been better for it even if I had never achieved academic (or other fruitful) employment.

    Reply
  9. Former Grad Student

    The senior Philosopher (not at Michigan) writes that she "think[s] US News etc. have done a huge disservice to academe by suggesting that the higher the completion rate the better at the undergrad level, and I wouldn't like to see the same assumption become unquestioned at the graduate level… And of course from an applicant's point of view a high attrition rate is always reasonably taken as a bad sign." The implication here is that perhaps some programs with low attrition levels are permitting students who should go on to do something else to remain in graduate school longer than they ought to. In many instances this is likely the case; but perhaps in other cases a high attrition rate is indicative of a lack of faculty support for students. The reason a high attrition rate is often taken as a bad sign by applicants is not that applicants are attracted to less rigorous programs; rather, a high completion rate at a particular program signals to applicants that the faculty at that program are committed so seeing their students finish their program and graduate with a PHD.

    Reply
  10. Eric Schwitzgebel

    In broadly the spirit of Marcus Arvan and anon 6, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to encourage departments to try to reach explicit overall judgments about students at the ends of years 1 and 2 (say), especially if that is done with the idea that people who fare poorly in the faculty's overall judgment will then be encouraged to leave. (Not that pro-attrition commenters are necessarily thinking that direction, though it seems natural to interpret Professor 1 in that way.)

    For one thing, those judgments might reflect all kind of things apart from skill or promise (especially skill or promise in a teaching-focused rather than research-focused career). For another, it might invite (or worsen) a competitive rather than a collaborative culture among grad students. For still another, the power relations between faculty and grad students are already problematically unbalanced, and this might tend to amplify that.

    Reply
  11. Derek Bowman

    @Peter Alward:

    I can understand why the things you learned and the act of studying and learning may have been fundamentally valuable in and of themselves. But I really don't understand how the PhD itself – an arbitrary marker of compliance with university procedures – could be an important source of value. There are many aspects of my graduate studies enriched my life, but getting the degree is not one of them. To the contrary, I think we diminish the value of our philosophical activities by identifying it too closely with institutions that are growing increasingly hostile to those activities.

    —

    @Marcus Arvan:
    I appreciate your note of caution, but given the brutal job market, I'm not sure how much room there really is for such late bloomers in professional academia. For those who don't publish as grad students and/or come out of their programs looking like rising stars, then there's not going to be much of a "later on" for them to surprise people in.

    Much better to combine early attrition with terminal MAs – so you leave with an accomplishment, not as a failure – combined with more serious attention to career paths for those humanities MAs.

    Reply
  12. Ex-Philosopher

    While generally I'd agree that students should be alerted as to their progress early on by their professors, I'd like to add that there are disadvantages to being dismissed from a PhD program at the 2-year mark. I was dismissed from a low-tier university after completing my 3-year PhD coursework. At first I was a little bitter from my dismissal since it seemed as if I'd wasted a year beyond what a standard MA required. But since I did do a lot more coursework than was necessary for the terminal MA, I was able to use this as an advantage when applying for jobs. I was pleased to find that government jobs, specifically those at the higher GS levels, require at "least three years of graduate school or a PhD". I was quickly hired. I've since learned that the hiring system at my agency is fairly rigid and we do not distinguish between a candidate's coursework for a PhD being complete and having an actual PhD. Only the completed PhD coursework is a requirement for employment, where a 2-year terminal MA would not be sufficient. Many – perhaps most – agencies are like this.

    Although most of my colleagues hold PhDs (and/or JDs) from elite institutions, there are a few of us who attempted a PhD and were dismissed/left for whatever reason after the 3-year mark. Most of us that only have the "ABD" 3-year MA also have a lot of rare and/or unique expertise that a PhD can't really give you. But the 3-year MA was a requirement.

    Reply
  13. Been there done that

    Attrition is a good thing, if you are just talking about the program and not human beings. Philosophy PhD programs should look beyond producing philosophy professors as their ultimate end. Programs should offer side-car sub-majors with other departments so that the MA has a practical point beside being a failure to attain the PhD. For example, an MA in Philosophy of Computation, or Philosophy of Law, etc., or a combined MA with certificate in Something Else would go a long way in making a traumatic termination into a career success. I don't mean to suggest that studying philosophy needs a "return on investment," but an ROI-for-students is much more humane than attrition-for-the-sake-of-the-department. When philosophy departments have multiple tracks instead of one (college teaching), philosophy could be something more people consider.

    Reply
  14. Derek Bowman

    Ex-Philosopher (or others with similar experience): If you're willing I'd like to correspond privately about your experience. You can find my contact information on my website.

    Reply
  15. Peter Alward

    @ Derek Bowman (#11)

    1. Let me assure you that earning a PhD was really intrinsically valuable for me despite the fact that it was not intrinsically valuable for you and how incomprehensible you might find this (and remind you, at the same time, that whether or not the value of something is mind-dependent is orthogonal to the question of whether or not it is intrinsic).

    2. Let me clarify that what was intrinsically valuable valuable for me was earning a PhD and not merely getting one or deserving one (where earning something is roughly getting something b/c you deserve it)

    3. Let me acknowledge that valuing earning a PhD — rather than, like you, merely valuing deserving one — may well be a moral failing on my part. But if so, as an instance of placing intrinsic value on earning a credential, it is a fairly widespread failing. Consider all the people who value earning a high school diploma. As above, my values may have been bourgeois, but certainly not that unusual.

    Reply
  16. E

    Bowman: "I can understand why the things you learned and the act of studying and learning may have been fundamentally valuable in and of themselves. But I really don't understand how the PhD itself – an arbitrary marker of compliance with university procedures – could be an important source of value."

    But earning a philosophy PhD just is "studying and learning…[in] compliance with university procedures," so I'm having trouble understanding, well, your lack of understanding about the value of philosophy PhDs. I take it you don't think that the universities procedures at your degree-granting institution were well-serving of the end of studying and learning, which is fine, but hardly an indictment of philosophy PhDs programs at large.

    Reply
  17. Derek Bowman

    E: I didn't mean to be offering anything like "an indictment of philosophy PhD programs at large." I was primarily expressing my doubts that the institutional certification that comes along with them is of other than instrumental value – primarily in pursuing a career that requires such certification. Insofar as one is prepared to expand one's horizons about the value of philosophy graduate education beyond this traditional path. Peter Alward's response is well taken – expressing my own incredulity is a far cry from showing that earning the PhD lacks such intrinsic value

    Reply
  18. harry b

    This phrase isn't clear:

    "I think US News etc. have done a huge disservice to academe by suggesting that the higher the completion rate the better at the undergrad level"

    It is better not to go to college than to go to college and drop or fail out (opportunity cost, debt, effects on self-confidence, etc). And the people who do drop or fail out are disproportionately those with the least resources to fall back on. College students from the bottom income quintile are only 1/3 as likely to graduate as college students from the top income quintile.

    Is the senior philosopher indifferent to whether her kid drops out of college? Am I misunderstanding the sentence? (Does it mean, what is true, but not what it says, that programs with higher drop-out rates are not necessarily worse than those with lower drop out rates?)

    US News has done many disservices to higher ed, and to the people who take advantage of it. This is not one of them.

    (Brian, if you consider this O/T, obviously, don't approve it).

    Reply
  19. Kit Levy

    Agree. It seems to me that Humanities departments were far more flexible about granting extensions to candidates before the financial squeeze when they were put under intense pressure to improve attrition rates. In years past, the departments had little financial incentive to enforce limits on time to completion. ABD candidates are required to register and pay for dissertation credits – 6 per semester – as compensation for supervisors' time and effort. About two years ago, my supervisor mentioned that my department was losing money by allowing candidates who had passed the five year limit to continue. I'm not suggesting that their earlier flexibility was motivated by profit, of course. But if a department stands to lose money by liberality, might they not be more inclined to tighten the reins?

    Reply

Designed with WordPress